It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
As I said, I think the language use is sloppy, but burning is also used to refer to nuclear burning, like hydrogen burning in stars.
Originally posted by F4guy
That is fusion, a nuclear reaction, which is totally different than oxidation. In a star about the size of our sun, or smaller, there is almost no oxygen involved. It is a proton-proton reaction synthesizing helium from hydrogen. There is some oxygen involved in more massive stars, where neutrons are involved. "Burning" of hydrogen, like in the Hindenburg sisaster, is a chemical oxidation reaction, involving electrons.
One way I avoid the confusion is if someone refers to "burning" outside a star, I assume combustion, and if they refer to "burning" inside a star I assume it refers to nuclear fusion.
In contrast to the length of time that hydrogen burning takes place (the Main Sequence lifetime), the duration of these other nuclear burning phases is very short.
I see how you get layers in the examples you cite of layers.
Originally posted by jiggerj
No takers on the layering theory, eh, regardless of what makes up the other layers?
Originally posted by micpsi
Dark matter is a mixture of:
1. non-baryonic matter, all ultimately composed of E8xE8' heterotic superstrings of ordinary matter whose unified forces have the symmetry of E8, and
2. superstrings of shadow matter whose forces have the invariance group E8' and whose spin-1 gauge bosons constitute the dark energy responsible for acceleration of the expansion of the universe.
it seems like your talk of the dark stuff occupying an actual space (in-between of galaxies) is not fruitful.[/quote]
Yup, fell on my face on that one.
the energy potential latent within a ball on a hill occupies no space. nevertheless, it is accounted for by dimensional analysis. therefore, when I read your op, I had interpreted it to mean a potential which exists in fewer dimensions than the explicit order.
This hurt my little brain for a moment. You're talking about energy potential as though it's a thing and not just a possibility. Care to explain? For me, it's like saying the kitchen table has the potential of having a city bus smash it to pieces. No matter how slight, the possibility is always there, but the table isn't (I don't know how to put it) saturated in this potential.
I think this quote by Dr. Park in the wiki article sums it up:
Originally posted by jonnywhite
Here's the wiki link for his "company". I have no idea if it's a legit or honest company:
en.wikipedia.org - BlackLight Power
That's the second biggest "free energy" fraud in history. The first was the Keely motor company, if you adjust the invested amount for inflation.
"they have nothing to sell but bull #. The company is therefore dependent on investors with deep pockets and shallow brains." – Park